Bolotov, S.G. 2012. Three ways of representation of Indo-European long sonants in Latin. Paper read at Indo-European linguistics and classical philology: proceedings of the Conference in memory of professor Joseph M. Tronsky, June 18-20, 2012, at St. Petersburg.

Carling, Gerd. 2004. Proto-Tocharian, Common Tocharian, and Tocharian - on the value of linguistic connections in a reconstructed language. Paper read at Proceedeings of the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, at Los Angeles.

Carpelan, Chr., and A. Parpola. 2001. Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Inda-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspective. In Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio. Helsinki: Memoires de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne.

Cowgill, Warren. 1970. Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, edited by G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Eidem, J. 2014. The Kingdom of Šamšī-Adad and its Legacies. In Constituent, Confederate, and Conquered Space: The Emergence of the Mittani State, edited by E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, N. Brisch and J. Eidem. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter.

Hinge, George. 2007. The authority of truth and the origin of ὅσιος and ἔτυµος (= Skt. satyá-and tūtumá-) with an excursus on pre-consonantal laryngeal loss. Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective:145-61.

Repeated Author. 2009. Internal reconstruction vs. external comparison: the case of the Indo-Uralic larnygeals. In Internal reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, results and problems. Section papers from the XVIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics held at the University of Copenhagen, edited by J. E. Rasmussen and T. Olander. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

Repeated Author. 2014. The Diversification of Proto-Finnic. In Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland, edited by J. A. Frog and C. Tolley Helsinki.

Repeated Author. 2015. Nugae Indo-Uralicae. JIES 43 (3 & 4):368-375.

Repeated Author. 2015. The Stratigraphy of the Germanic Loanwords in Finnic. In Early Germanic Languages in Contact, edited by J. O. Askedal and H. F. Nielsen. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Repeated Author. 2017. The Indo-Europeans and the Non-Indo-Europeans in Prehistoric Northern Europe. In Language and Prehistory of the Indo- European Peoples: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, edited by A. Hyllested, B. N. Whitehead, T. Olander and B. A. Olsen. Copenhagen: University of Chicago Press.

Kazaryan, V. K. 2017. The Tense/Aspect system of the Indo-European verb and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Paper read at Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology - XXI Proceedings of the 21st Conference in Memory of Professor Joseph M. Tronsky, 26–28 June, 2017, at St. Petersburg.

Klochko, Viktor. 2013. Complex of Metal Goods between the Vistula and Dnieper rivers at the turn of the 4th/3rd to the 3rd millennium BC. Concept of the Carpathian - Volhynia “Willow Leaf” metallurgy centre. In The Ingul-Donets Early Bronze Civilization as Springboard for Transmission of Pontic Cultural Patterns to the Baltic Drainage Basin 3200-1750 BC. Poznań.

Koch, John T. 2013. Out of the flow and ebb of the European Bronze Age: Heroes, Tartessos, and Celtic. In Celtic From the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, edited by J. T. Koch and B. Cunliffe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Koivulehto, Jorma. 2001. The Earliest Contacts between Indo-European and Uralic Speakers in the Light of Lexical Loans. Christian Carpelan,. In Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio. 2001: Societé Finno-Ougrienne.

Lubotsky, Alexander. 1989. Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a. In The new sound of Indo-European: essays in phonological reconstruction, edited by T. Vennemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Repeated Author. 1997. Sound law and analogy: papers in honor of Robert SP Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Vol. 9: Rodopi.

Repeated Author. 1999. The Indo-Iranian substratum. In Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8-10 January 1999, edited by C. Carpelan, A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio. Helsinki: Société Finno-ougrienne.

Repeated Author. 2001. The Indo-Iranian substratum. Paper read at Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8-10 January 1999. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne 242.), at Helsinki.

Lubotsky, Alexander, and Sergei A. Starostin. 2003. Turkic and Chinese loan words in Tocharian. In Language in Time and Space. A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, edited by B. Bauer and G.-J. Pinault. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Majer, Marek. 2012. An archaic Indo-European verbal form in the Slavic generalizing particle *-žьdo? In The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-15 September 2010, edited by H. C. Melchert. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Mallory, J., and D.Q. Adams. 2007. Reconstructing the Proto-Indo-Europeans. In The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mallory, J.P. 2013. The Indo-Europeanization of Atlantic Europe. In Celtic From the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, edited by J. T. Koch and B. Cunliffe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Repeated Author. 2014. Nominal agreement in PIE from the areal and typological point of view. In Studies on the collective and feminine in Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective. Leiden: Brill.

Mouton, Alice, Ian Rutherford, and Ilya Yakubovich. 2013. Luwian Identities. Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Nussbaum, Alan J. 1997. The" Saussure Eifect" in Latin and Italic." Sound Law and Analogy. In Papers in Honor of Robert SP Beekes on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, edited by A. Lubotsky. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1982. A neglected phonetic law : the reduction of the Indo-European laryngeals in internal syllables before yod. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Galway, April 1981), edited by A. Ahlqvist. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Repeated Author. 2006. Further links between the Indo-Iranian substratum and the BMAC language. In Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan Linguistics, edited by B. Tikkanen and H. Hettrich. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Prósper, Blanca María. 1999. The inscription of Cabeço das Fráguas revisited. Lusitanian and Alteuropäisch populations in the west of the Iberian Peninsula. Transactions of the Philological Society 97 (2):151-183.

Schmidt, Karl Horst. 2011. Contributions from new data to the reconstruction of the proto-language. In Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, edited by E. C. Polomé and W. Winter. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Weiss, Michael. 2016. The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals and the Name of Cilicia in the Iron Age. In Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by A. M. Byrd, J. DeLisi and M. Wenthe. Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave Press.

Repeated Author. 2017. The paradigm of the word for ‘house, home’ in Old Irish and related issues. In Indogermanische Forschungen.

Repeated Author. 1997. Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies: A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, edited by H. H. Hock. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Repeated Author. 2018. The shared features of Italic and Celtic. In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, edited by J. Klein, J. Brian and M. Fritz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

[ii]A division is made here between traits considered old (hence Early Proto-Uralic) and those considered innovations within the parent language (hence Late Proto-Uralic). Given the phonetic conservatism of the reconstructions ranging from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finno-Samic, it is reasonable to think that there were probably other phonetic – as well as morphological and syntactic – changes that have not been properly investigated. For example, it is likely that the consonant system, including laryngeal evolution, was more complex and stepped from Indo-Uralic than the static Proto-Uralic reconstructible through comparative grammar.

[iii] Kortlandt considers Greek éednon ‘dowry’ more likely to come from *hu̯ed-no-m, in common with Sla. *věno.

[iv]The traditional division into a ‘Centum’ and a ‘Satem’ dialects should be rejected, because satemization trends are late and affected each individual dialect differently, apart from the methodological pitfalls involved in the reconstruction of three series of velars for the parent language (see below for information on the three-dorsal theory).

[v]While Kallio has criticised in more than one occasion the proposal of hypothetic PIE cognates without a direct attestation of the source word (i.e. based on indirect evidence) to support potential loanwords in Uralic languages, this example proves that such a proposal in this case would have been a priori more reasonable than the proposed late borrowing – especially because the reconstruction of initial laryngeals for any Germanic or Pre-Germanic stage is not warranted.

[vi]This loan, found in Finnic languages, is maybe even more likely to belong to a much later stage (maybe metathesised *ehpo < Pre-Gmc. *ehwo-?), but it could belong to a Proto-Uralic stage coinciding with the first PIE expansions associated with the horse, and later replaced in most languages, e.g. in Proto-Ugric by root *luu̯-/*luɣ-. Similarly, North Caucasian *ɦɨ[n]ču̯ĭ may have been adopted at the same time, but the ‘satemization’ points possibly to Proto-Indo-Iranian influence (Dolgopolsky 1987).

[vii]Less likely is the adoption of *hōku- in a similar period, cf. Fin. hoppu, Kar. hoppu ‘hurry’, and perhaps Ludian hopp ‘quarrel’, all probably from a source akin to Swedish hoppa, ‘jump’. If it was in fact borrowed from LPIE, this would support not only the likely condition of *heku̯o- as epithet, ‘the swift one’, probably substituting the previous name for the domestic animal, but also that the relationship between both words was still obvious in the Late Proto-Indo-European period.

[viii]For detailed information on North-West Indo-European phonology, morphology, and syntax, you can read specialised works published at <https://academiaprisca.org/>.

[ix]In the unlikely case that three series of velars could be reconstructed for Late PIE, the NWIE stage would represent a ‘centum’ dialect (with the merge of ‘palatovelars’ with plain velars), with a later satemization trend in Balto-Slavic different from Indo-Iranian.

[x]The most widespread view nowadays holds that (eventive) long and short passives can be reconstructed as a function for Late PIE, but that there was no specialised passive morphology in the common stage; so e.g. the passive or ‘medial-intransitive’ found in Greek together with its middle system. Judging by the use of inherited DIE *-r alongside *-i, as well as personal endings and stative periphrastic constructions in North-West Indo-European dialects, it can also be assumed that both options were present in the common language, possibly dating as far back as the Indo-Anatolian stage (Kloekhorst 2012), and that they were simplified in later dialectal stages. The use of impersonal *-r Old Indian, its presence in Tocharian (separated first from the Northern Indo-European group), in Italic and Celtic, and its survival up to Proto-Slavic (see below §4.5.3. Northern European)—a dialect that selected mediopassive endings in *-i—may point to this original NWIE (unstable) system. The New Phrygian inscriptions with middle forms further support this alternation in European dialects: αββερετορ ‘affertur’ < *ad-bheretor and αδδακετορ ‘afficitur’ < *ad-dhaketor.

[xi]Please note: statistics were made before the final version of the manuscript, so it is possible that some more shared stems or roots were added, or some data was corrected or deleted. Because of that, approximate total numbers are given instead of exact ones.

[xii]As in other tonal languages, stress accent has been placed on heavy syllables during recitation. Just like Mandarin Chinese, PIE must have had both stress and pitch accent. Both were important, since some syllables must have had more prominence than others, and high pitch seems to have been more prominent – vowel length appears in most Anatolian words on PIE stressed syllable (DeLisi 2013). As a rule of thumb – as e.g. in the reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation, in Arabic, or in the Sezer stress pattern in Turkish –, syllable weight (the length of the syllable) marks the stress of words in this rendition of the fable. Whenever possible, then, syllables that include a long vowel or a diphthong (CVV) and those with more than one consonant (CVCC) are stressed. If in conflict, those with a combination of both (CVVCC) are probably the stressed ones. Nevertheless, according to Kortlandt: “When comparing PIE with other tonal languages, the best candidate is Japanese, which means that the “stress” falls on the last high syllable of a word form or sequence of connected word forms.”

Voiced consonants at the end of syllable (such as *-d, *-gh-, etc.) are pronounced voiced, because LPIE or NWIE did not have final obstruent devoicing as a rule (Byrd 2010). However, there are certain known cases of regressive assimilation, such as *DT→*TT, hence *tod in the last sentence may be more exactly pronounced as *tot-kekluu̯ṓs.

[xiii]On the hypothetic ‘offshore Luwic’: “(...) there are scholars who maintain that Luwian or a closely related language was spread throughout the Aegean area, as it represents a key component of pre-Greek substrate. The main role in this argument is normally allotted to the toponyms in -(ι)νθo- and -(α)σσο-, such as λαβύρινθος “palace of the Cretan kings, Labyrinth” (da-pu2-ri-to- in the Mycenaean syllabic orthography) or Παρνασ(σ)ός ‘Mount Parnassus’. The first of these proper nouns was compared with the Carian toponym Λάβραυνδα (also Λάβρυανδα), while the second one finds a direct parallel in the Anatolian town name Parnassa, which is attested in cuneiform sources. Furthermore, the root of the first pair of toponyms is reminiscent of Hittite-Luwian labar-/dabar- ‘to rule’, while the root of the second one evokes the Hittite-Luwian stem parna- ‘house’. The suffixes -anda and -assa are productive with toponyms in Asia Minor, and the associated roots have a recognizable Hittite or Luwian character in many cases. If one accepts that they have the same origin as Greek -(ι)νθo- and -(α)σσο-, this can be used as an argument for the Luwian origin of such toponyms as Κόρινθος ‘Corinth’, Τίρυνθ- ‘Tiryns’, or Κνωσσός ‘Knossos’.” (Mouton, Rutherford, and Yakubovich 2013).

[xiv] A less compelling explanation is given by Kroonen (2013), by which geminated p may continue *hepu̯os, i.e. a contamination form of the original paradigm found in Anatolian, expected nom. *hékus <*hekus, and the gen. *hépos <*hku̯ós.

[xv]Because of the devoicing trend found in Proto-Greek and Proto-Armenian (arguably the first language to split from the common family), it is tempting to place Phrygian consonantal development as an innovation departing from this. For example, in aspirated stops, not *bh → Phryg. b, but rather *bh → **ph → **bh→ *b. See above for a similar evolution in Macedonian.

[xvi]The proposal of a hypothetic Temematic substratum language (Holzer 1989) as a North-West Indo-European (i.e. centum) dialect absorbed by Balto-Slavic on its expansion to the west (a dialect of Indo-Slavonic, then), in spite of its defence by Kortlandt (Kortlandt 2018), is not tenable in light of the thorough review and dismissal by Matasović (2013) of all the proposed Temematic etymologies.

[xvii]More recently Kroonen (2013) listed ca. 220 broadly described ‘Northern European isoglosses’ (see above §3.2.7. Statistics of lexical isoglosses). Because of the lack of genetic relationship between Germanic and Balto-Slavic, the approximately 60 true shared stems between them—close to the number shared between Germanic and Celtic, and between Germanic and Italic—must be interpreted then generally (like the West Indo-European isoglosses) as ancient, North-West Indo-European stems which have only survived in these two specific branches.

[xviii]Kortlandt (2016)argued that an old PIA dative plural *-mus must have been replaced by the ablative ending *-bhos in Italic, Celtic, and Indo-Iranian (where *-bhi̯os may reflect the attachment of *-os to the instrumental forms in *-bhi-). Nevertheless, on one hand there is a general consensus that the original form behind Sla. *-mŭ and OLith. -mus (maybe influenced by Old Prussian) must have come from a dative-ablative plural *-mos(Olander 2005), cf. PGmc *-maz, and not from *-mus as suggested byGeorgiev (1966)and Kortlandt(Halla-aho 2006). Similarly, the common instrumental in *-mi- behind Germanic and Balto-Slavic forms contrasts with the rest of the Late Indo-European domain, which shows *-bhi-.

An ending *-mos (and thus a *-m-/*-bh- variation) has also been argued to be quite old, based on enclitic pronouns Hitt. Dat. Pl. -š-maš, Kizzuwatna Luw. -mmaš < *s-mos, and Toch. 1st-3rd pl. A -m, B -me < *-mos(Bonmann 2017). However, this is highly controversial, based on the alternative interpretation of the enclitic pronoun origin as *-sm-os(Melchert 2018). On the other hand, we can reconstruct with a great degree of certainty an Indo-Anatolian adverbial ending *-bhi- (most likely at the origin of the common LPIE ending), as found e.g. in Hitt. kuwāpi ‘where, when’, kuwāpi-kki, ‘somewhere, sometime’ (<*kwo-bhi-), as well as in *χn̥tbhí, ‘on both sides, around’, from *χent-, ‘face, front’(Jasanoff 1976), found widespread in all Late PIE dialects.

[xix]Verner’s law and Grimm’s law are usually considered together as the paradigmatic consonantal shift of Germanic, with some authors putting one before the other and vice versa. In this case, Verner’s law has been selected as the first one, due to its potential parallel development with Finno-Samic evolution (see below).

[xxii]The Tower of Babel Etymological Database Project at <http://starling.rinet.ru/> has been used for this task, especially for Proto-Turkic and common Micro-Altaic versions of the fable.

[xxiii]Proposed first by Sturtevant (1942) the condition of Anatolian as an archaic language “sister” to Indo-European from an Indo-Hittite parent language, this is still rejected by some scholars (Joseph 2000; Kazaryan 2017).